by the way, is he really right about schroedinger's cat? i thought the point was that there was no way for the observer to know if the cat was alive or dead until you open the box (i.e., make the measurement) - not that the cat itself was both alive and dead. which seems to me to be silly. i mean, they can sleep pretty soundly, but if you poke one, they demonstrate pretty quickly that they are alive. and schroedinger himself specified a mechanism that had an equal probability of killing or not killing the cat. so clearly, he was seeing it as an event that you couldn't know had happened, until you assessed the result.

plus, i kinda like the concept of schroedinger's rapist.

Quoting this from somewhere:

Quote:

This revolves round a principle of quantum theory called "superposition", which basically claims that if you don't know what the state of any object is, then - as long as you don't look to check - it is actually in all possible states simultaneously. "echotolosa" therefore is simultaneously male, female and hermaphrodite according to superposition, until you meet me and see I'm female ! It's the checking that limits it to a single possibilty.

Erwin Schrodinger proposed a theoretical experiment in which a cat was put in a steel box along with a vial of hydrocyanic acid along with a tiny amount of a radioactive substance. If just one atom of this decayed during the test period, it would trigger a sequence in which a hammer would break the vial and kill the cat. As long as the box stayed closed, you wouldn't know whether this had happened or not, so according to quantum law and the superposition of states, the cat is both alive and dead at one and the same time. It's only when you take a measurement, ie look in the box, that the superposition ceases to be and the cat is either alive or dead. The paradox is that observation (=measurement) affects the outcome, so the outcome doesn't exist until the measurement is made.

and

Quote:

Is the cat required to be an observer, or does its existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer? Each alternative seemed absurd to Albert Einstein, who was impressed by the ability of the thought experiment to highlight these issues. In a letter to Schrödinger dated 1950, he wrote:

You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality, if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something independent of what is experimentally established. Their interpretation is, however, refuted most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + amplifier + charge of gunpowder + cat in a box, in which the psi-function of the system contains both the cat alive and blown to bits. Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation.[4]

So unless I'm mistaken, the cat is both alive and death until it's observed - both states exist until then. Einstein's talking about 'reality' not existing outside of observation, I think.

I must have missed Guest's post about this, though, but it does fit with the Shrödinger's Rapist thing. Until the woman is actually raped and the observation is made, there's no way for that woman to know if he is or isn't a rapist. Thus, he is both at the same time, paradoxically. Can you point me to Guest's post regarding this? Because I have a hard time understanding why it wouldn't fit._________________attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose

I mean, as we all know, Schrödinger's Cat was an absurd experiment to ridicule quantum superposition by assuming that the cat in the box is both dead and alive at the same time. Since it's clear to me that Phaedra has perhaps misunderstood, or not comprehended the full aspect of the original experiment, making the case instead of an either/or, I propose another name: Pascal's Rapist!

do you think it is because i am agreeing that you intentionally insulted women?

You just continue fusing two separate lines of discussion.
The one about "tame" and the one about "asking for it"

Quote:

i actually think your initial inquiry about how the previous long-winded discussion bore on "she asked for it" was a reasonable question, just incredibly clumsily phrased.

Let's put it straight: the concept was intentionally put in the most contrast and bright way i know, not hiding it in halftones or euphemisms.
Those are provocative wordings but i do think that euphemisms and "literary exaggerations" only work where the topic is as clear as plain water. In any case of controversy and high emotional response, using tame wordings would be lowering the signal level.

And i still insist that people stop mixing up "tame flame" and "asking for it" flame.
As for the latter we did not spend a word at it (except for my single reply to Wellen AFAIR). For i was wrongly accused of the former (like i was targeting women with all i said about "tame") and all that 4 hours were bout that.

You may think that for you it would be convenient to mix things up and ignore what and where i said. Not for me. If i request those issues be discussed as separate - then that has importance for me do you see it or not.

Quote:

you actually just did, on misunderstanding taming - was it that bad?

It is easy and i offered it several times before doing it.
But that was not the kind of apology i was demanded many times and let refusing.

I was not asked to apologize for "i was rude to Fuchsia", I was not asked to apologize for "i was rude to Fuchsia and all other persons". On contrary i offered that and kept get refusals. I was asked to apologize that "i was rude to Fuchsia because Fuchsia is a woman".

That is a wicked shift of contexts that i protested. I would never admit i ever targeted women when i was saying "Nana tamed Fuchsia" no matter how some persons here wish to bend the context in that way.

What about the rest - we did not even started.

fritterdonut wrote:

The last time someone used "faggot" or "fag" to refer to a bundle of sticks, or a cigarette, in North America, was probably some time around the beginning of the 19th century.

And when was the last time, someone said "Faggots are bastards" only to mean that they are "children born out of wedlock" ? What was you point at "technically means" if not cutting the things out of context ?

Any kind of measurement - is a measurement.
When you are listening if the cat is breathing or purring, that is that very measurement that locks the state into one of fixed "dead" or "alive" positions. To look at the cat, to listen to it, to put a pendulum and trying to guess if the cat is walking inside the box - those are just different kinds of measurements and any of those collapses quantum probability into one or another fixed non-quantum state.

NB. Einstein was always against the quantum theory because it was not appealing to his idea of elegance. "God does not roll the dices" or some thing like that.

ShadowCell wrote:

that is not what a synonym is.

It is not, but if you would argue with enraged refusing to listen mob in Russian and would only have last few minutes to answer dozen of accusations at the same time - i yet to see how accurate you'd be choosing the words and whether you'd find time to scan all the vocabularies.

As for that point, you could say "synonim is not orrect word, better say XXXXX" but you skipped being helpful. Helpful not even for me, but for the communication.

Since it is hold here for golden standard, then we should quote it the more the better, shouldn't we ?

Phaedra LonelyHearts wrote:

you must be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment

Nice line.

If a person is going naked into midnight deadwood - it is "sending signals by appearance and environment"
If that person is a woman - then she is sending them.
And even if she is a woman she still "must be aware" of them.

Phaedra LonelyHearts wrote:

The third point: Women are communicating all the time

Nice point again. Especially "all the time"
Not only few times in an hour when it benefits them, but "all the time"
Not only "arms folded across chest" but "naked in the wood" too.

And i must stress it again, if some woman was raped, then the rapist is criminal. Which does not mean the woman is all-white angel.
That is not the place for white-and-black dichotomy.

The fact that rapist committed crime does not automatically mean that woman was not sending provoking signals that she should have been "aware of".
Surely that is not always the case, but that is neither never ever happened.

Phaedra LonelyHearts wrote:

Learn to understand and respect women’s communication to you

In other words, men must learn women language.

If we talk about a man unilaterally wishing to make a contact with woman - that is true. Not because she is woman, but because it is his wish to change status quo and build contact where there were none.

However walking a public place is a two way communication, it is not womans sole property.
The only reason to demand men to "learn women language" for a routine life is a similar demand to the other side, to demand women to learn men language. Either both sides learn those languages or none.

If you want to convey "Please leave me alone" then do convey it. Not by monotonic voice or other wannabe messages, but by words.
Surely it would not work with all men - but i assure you that does not work with all women either.

- Those are so impolite family! They asked if i wanted a couple of tea, and of course polite person i am i said "no". And you know what? Those rudes did not repeat their offer!

No lines like this. You either communicate the message, or you miscommunicate.
If you said "leave me alone" and the man did not retreat - he definitely ignores your expressed will.
But if you did not - then you did not communicated, you may hope for it but no more than hope.

Last edited by Arioch on Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:18 am; edited 1 time in total

I seriously can't keep reading your posts. The language is so garbled that I can't extricate the critical, salient points. You make less sense as time goes on. All I pick up on is that you are trying to beat the "see, the woman has part of the blame too!" horse to death and that you were whining about how it is not helpful to tell you that faggot isn't a synonym for a gay person, we apparently have to hold your hand to some different point of need.

This language barrier isn't insurmountable, but you don't make it worth surmounting. You should stop trying to talk about the issue.

In summary: Sometimes, rape victims deserve to be raped because of how they acted & dressed, and how they chose to go to dangerous places.

Unless the language barrier is confusing me.

You again show the black-and-white vision.
In your vision, if the man is criminal that means for you the woman did everything proper way no matter what she actually do.
That is not either-or. Responsibility is not the atom, that only can be relocated here or there, in its whole.
The offender (any offender, men included) can had commited a crime (any crime, rape including) and at the same tame the victim (any victim, woman included) was doing improper, silly unreasonably risky things.

And i don't like the word "blame" when the person harmed itself.
If i broken my neighbor's car, then he can blame me.
But if i broken my own car (and only it), then the very word "blame" seems not applicable to me. I am a fool or whatever, but if i inflicted harm onto myself then why anyone from outside would decide to blame me or not ?

Why is it that you are still trying to shift some of the blame on women, Arioch? I am sorry, but if we go down your line of reasoning, then how do we know when a woman's behaviour was appropriate and when it wasn't? If you're going to keep going down that line then yes, let all women cover themselves up and make sure they don't flirt or smile or for god's sake, nooooo, don't you even dare look him in the eye! If some men didn't think that somehow they are entitled to sex whenever they want it then it wouldn't even matter if a woman was naked in front of them. They'd have the sense to RESPECT her, shrug it off and JUST MOVE ON. I don't jump on guys, I don't think I am entitled to have sex with one just because he took his shirt in front of me and started, I don't know, playing the guitar, constantly looking my way. But I bet he would think I was asking for it if I did that and he didn't have enough brains to realize he should keep himself to himself until he has permission to do anything else.
And why the fuck is it that it is only women who should worry about the appropriateness of their behaviour and make sure they don't step out of line so they won't be harmed? Why won't you complain about the ones who harm? Stop telling us what we can or cannot do to be morally free of blame because honestly I'm pretty sure NONE of us care.

In summary: Sometimes, rape victims deserve to be raped because of how they acted & dressed, and how they chose to go to dangerous places.

Unless the language barrier is confusing me.

You again show the black-and-white vision.
In your vision, if the man is criminal that means for you the woman did everything proper way no matter what she actually do.
That is not either-or. Responsibility is not the atom, that only can be relocated here or there, in its whole.
The offender (any offender, men included) can had commited a crime (any crime, rape including) and at the same tame the victim (any victim, woman included) was doing improper, silly unreasonably risky things.

And i don't like the word "blame" when the person harmed itself.
If i broken my neighbor's car, then he can blame me.
But if i broken my own car (and only it), then the very word "blame" seems not applicable to me. I am a fool or whatever, but if i inflicted harm onto myself then why anyone from outside would decide to blame me or not ?

What you're saying is more, if you smash your neighbours car that is your fault, if you smash your own car that is your fault, but if your car gets smashed up by someone else then its its own fault for being a car.

If there is one street you drive down to get home from work, and that street is widely known to be dangerous -- shitloads of cars get jacked on this street -- and then you get car jacked, that is the fault of the car jackers for being fucking carjackers.

It could be argued that you should have known better than to drive down that street, but its a street, its for cars driving down.

You could have chosen to express fear of driving your car down that street, but instead you weighed the risk, drove down the street, and got carjacked. The blame? Belongs to the carjackers. Because what they're doing is a crime.

This is all getting very confusing. But if you told me 'I drove down carjacker alley and got carjacked!' I would say, lets call the police! not, you had it coming.